Oswald Backyard Photo Fakery

[Michael Walton]

Oswald denied he was in those photos. He got it right - they pasted his face on someone else - and said he'd show how it was done. That, and the weird left side of his neck where the shading of it blends in with the fence background, is good enough for me.

If you stare at the photo long enough, you can see where the outline of the paste job is of his head.

[Steve Barber]

 Nonsense.  Marina Oswald took the pictures.  She said this herself.  Why do you people continually bring up these old conspiracy theories  that were laid to rest years ago.  So Oswald said his face was pasted onto someone elses body. He lied, like he lied about everything else. 

[Michael Walton]

It would help you [but probably not] to know that there have been many, many cases where the official story of the case has been wrong or incorrect, or swept under the rug to reach a foregone conclusion. One very good example is the Ramsey case. Despite all evidence that there was no intruder in the family house and it was an inside job, the family, with the help of hiring a bevy of lawyers, was able to twist and turn the story to push the intruder story. And of course the gullible media to this day has lapped it up.

There are too many inconsistencies and implausibilities in the Kennedy case to accept the official story no questions asked. Marina Oswald was immediately sequestered by police and the FBI and coached months later about what to say. There are detailed articles about this out there, so look it up. The finding of the BYP are odd as well. Again, there are plenty of good articles out there about that.

Despite not recording a single interview with LHO during that weekend, he said what he said. The photos were not of him, someone pasted his face on another's body and he could show how it's done. And he had a right to present that during his day in court but sadly he never got that chance.

As for the experts, there are plenty of "experts" out there that do all kinds of "scientific" measures but in the final analysis can and will come to a foregone conclusion. Just because they use some million-dollar piece of machinery to analyze them does not mean they're always right. This applies to the experts on the other side of the fence. Again, like the Ramsey case, this happened with the RN's writing analysis. The kicker, for me, for that case was to see the mother actually sit during a recorded deposition and repeatedly deny over and over again examples of her own handwriting.

Oswald didn't lie about everything. He blurted out that he lived in Russia (true) and he also blurted out that he was a patsy (also true). He was no dummy and knew as events unfolded throughout the weekend what was shaping up for him.

It is amazing how you people think you can just make evidence disappear. Just deny things, refute empirical and technical evidence - without showing where it's wrong - and just ignore it.

Actually, Steve, it's the other way around. It's people like you who most probably don't like the Kennedys and, therefore, you're biased about the case because you simply cannot see beyond the official story.

Here is one of my favorite photos from the case. What you're seeing here is not Bob Groden and Dave Lifton in Dealey Plaza goofing around. What you're seeing are FBI officials conducting their official investigation of the case by recreating the shots. Let's forget for a moment, which people like you ALWAYS bring up when this photo is shown, that the car is not the same. Let's forget, too, that the Kennedy stand in may be too high or the Connolly guy may be too low. These don't matter at all here.

What matters is this - the FBI guys have 100% access to the autopsy record and photos. This is mere months after 11/22. So basing their work on this official record, they say, "OK, let's put a sticker on the Kennedy guy based on the bullet that hit him in the back." And because they knew that based on the official record, there was NO bullet of entry or exit in that rear sticker ABOVE the back wound. Therefore, that sticker on the rear neck is where the THROAT wound is. In other words, the wound that Kennedy in the front in his throat.

So now thy're like, "Great! But wait a minute. How in the xxxx could this lower sticker exit UPWARD and out of the front in the throat area when the shot is coming DOWNWARD?!"

So Steve, try to explain that. But you see, Steve, you won't so, therefore, you'll just ignore it. And the reason why you'll ignore it is simply because you can't logically and plausibly explain how that could physically happen.

[John Iacoletti]

It is amazing how you people think you can just make evidence disappear.

It is amazing how you people think that something like the backyard photos constitutes evidence for who killed JFK.

[Michael Walton]

What's the problem? The bullet enters at the C7 level and exits at the T1 level. I don't see a conflict in the photos, other than they're taken from different camera angles and aren't directly comparable as you try to present.

Sure, Jerry, sure. And need I remind you that there was NO termination hole on the other side of his body? In other words, Humes himself stuck either a probe or finger in that rear back wound and found NO exit.

Uh, huh. Right, Jerry, right.

[Michael Walton]

No, Jerry. Both bullet holes were clearly defined. A bullet traveling at that speed and to make such a defined hole would have made a clear path. The problem with your argument, Jerry, is you keep taking this testimony verbatim. For example, you said that patch on the neck because according to the testimony, it came in and out at a certain spinal #. But you still don't explain how a bullet traveling downward from roughly 90 feet in the air will hit a person's back and then exit ABOVE in the frontal neck area - which is where the upper white patch is located in my image, Jerry.

And now you're doing it again, Jerry, using the panel as they fumble around with "it could have been because of rigor..." or whatever.

Here's the same reenactment, Jerry. You can see the back patch and this is from the TSBD. There's no way a bullet traveling that fast and from that high up would exit ABOVE where it came in.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Is the theory that before the assassination - at some time on some occasion and in some way - the conspirators who framed Oswald for the shooting obtained Oswald's rifle, his camera, access to the backyard at the Neely Street residence, and copies of the two radical publications that are seen in the photo?

Then these unnamed conspirators took a photo. Actually several. They then pasted a - obvious to conspiracy believers but not photographic experts - head shot of Oswald onto the staged photos.

Then they made three - not one, mind you - but three faked/staged photos and planted them. Including a negative.

Moreover, they got the DeMohrsenschildts to lie about being given one of the photos by the Oswalds. And, of course, got Marina to lie about taking them. But there's one more, the handwriting on the back of their photo given to the DeMohrenschildts was identified as belonging to Lee Oswald. But that is wrong too.

And they were so good at this fakery that photographic experts using microscopic analysis of the originals and the negative (matching it to the camera) were unable to discover this fakery. Even modern analysis, some 50 years later, using digital techniques (see for example Harry Farid and his team's work on this) is unable to discover these alterations.

This is simply not believable. Or doable. Not to me.

This farfetched explanation is a classic example of how the conspiracy believers believe literally anything and everything in order to make their conspiracy work. It is simply impossible to do all of the above. But never mind, "they" just did and, hey lone assassin fools, prove "they" didn't.

[John Iacoletti]

Marina didn't say she took 3 photos.

It's unnecessary to posit photo alteration anyway, since the photos tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy.